Creating a Typology of Temporary Landscapes Xrachel Fox 2015
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Creating a Typology of Temporary Landscapes XRachel Fox 2015 Creating a Typology of Temporary Landscapes Rachel Fox 2015 Creating a Typology of Temporary Landscapes Rachel Fox Copyright 2015 Masters Report submitted in partial fulfi llment of the requirements for the degree of: Master of Landscape Architecture (MLA) Major Professor: Mary Catherine (Katie) Kingery Page, Landscape Architecture Supervisory Committee: Jon Hunt, Landscape Architecture Laurence Clement, Landscape Architecture Kansas State University College of Architecture, Planning, and Design Department of Landscape Architecture and Regional & Community Planning Abstract Temporary landscapes are an emerging project type with in the fi eld of landscape architecture. Pop- up parks, parklets, and temporary art installations have been gaining media attention and changing notions of open space. Landscape architects need to take a more active role in the planning, design, and execution of these temporary landscapes. Peter Bishop describes temporary land use as “an intentional phase” where the “time-limited nature of the use is generally explicit” (Bishop 2012, 5). This research refi nes Bishop’s defi nition by stating temporary landscapes must be intentionally time limited designs of open space. Currently the unorganized variety of projects has impeded landscape architects’ ability to evaluate and learn from these spaces. This research project seeks to understand and synthesize different characteristics of temporary landscapes. A typology was developed by identifying key themes in literature, composing a carefully curated series of precedent studies, participating in the development of a temporary pop-up park in Wichita, Kansas, and developing a series of diagrams that identify the relationships between temporal types. The products of this research will help planners and designers develop more successful and intentional temporary landscapes. Contents Introduction 1 Background 7 Methods 15 Application 21 Precedents 35 Connections 61 Conclusions 75 References 81 Appendix 93 vii List of Figures Chapter 1: Introduction Figure 1.1 Connecting Projects (by Author) Chapter 2: Background None Chapter 3: Methods Figure 3.1 Framework (by Author) Chapter 4: Critical Application Figure 4.1 Downtown Context and Site (Wichita Downtown Development Corporation (2013) Figure 4.2 Douglas Pop-up Park Site Photograph 1 (by Author) Figure 4.3 Douglas Pop-up Park Site Photograph 2 (by Author) Figure 4.4 Douglas Pop-up Park Site Photograph 3 (by Author) Figure 4.5 Critical Application Framework (by Author) Figure 4.6 Douglas Pop-up Park Charette Drawings (Mercado, Holt, Glastetter, Fox, DeOrsey 2015) Figure 4.7 Douglas Pop-up Park Design Development (Glastetter Mercado 2015) Figure 4.8 Graphic Interpretation of Katherine’s Interview (Glastetter 2015) Figure 4.9 Graphic Interpretation Front Yard Adventures (Glastetter 2015) Figure 4.10 Douglas Pop-up Park Framework (by Author) viii Chapter 5: Precedent Figure 5.1 Installing Park(ing) Day (Pearson 2007) Figure 5.2 A Place to Park (Rebar 2006) Figure 5.3 Pink Balls on Sainte Catherine Street (Webster 2014) Figure 5.4 Pink Balls Floating along Sainte Catherine Street (Webster 2014) Figure 5.5 Daytime at Project Urban Fabric (British Columbia Society of Landscape Architects 2014) Figure 5.6 Evening at Project Urban Fabric (British Columbia Society of Landscape Architects 2014) Figure 5.7 South Central Farms Farmer (McIntosh 2006) Figure 5.8 Inside the Farm (McIntosh 2006) Figure 5.9 Lets Play (Demoiselle 2 Femmes 2012) Figure 5.10 Imagining a New Place (Demoiselle 2 Femmes 2012) Figure 5.11 Taking a Seat at ReSurfaced (City Collaborative 2014) Figure 5.12 ReSurfaced: A View From Above (City Collaborative 2014) Figure 5.13 A New Times Square (New York City Department of Transportation 2009) Figure 5.14 Times Square: A Place for People (New York City Department of Transportation 2009) Figure 5.15 A Lush View of Urban Meadow Bklyn (XS Space and Farris 2008) Figure 5.16 Urban Meadow Bklyn in Bloom (XS Space and Farris 2008) Figure 5.17 Planters at Jane Warner Plaza (Kusler 2009) Figure 5.18 Enjoying Jane Warner Plaza (Hogan 2011) Chapter 6: Connections Figure 6.1 Event-Based Temporary Landscapes (by Author) Figure 6.2 Event-Based Temporary Landscapes Common Attributes (by Author) Figure 6.3 Event-Based Temporary Landscapes Connections (by Author) Figure 6.4 Interim Temporary Landscapes (by Author) Figure 6.5 Interim Temporary Landscapes Common Attributes (by Authors) Figure 6.6 Interim Temporary Landscapes Connections (by Author) Figure 6.7 Incremental Temporary Landscape (by Author) Figure 6.8 Incremental temporary Landscape Common Attributes (by Author) Figure 6.9 Incremental Temporary Landscapes Connections (by Author) ix Acknowledgments Committee I am very thankful for my committee members who exercised their patience, support, and critique. Katie Kingery Page, Jon Hunt, and Laurence Clement ‘s insight has been essential to ensuring my project’s success. I want to extend my gratitude to all the professors I’ve had in my fi ve years here at Kansas State University. They have challenged me, pushed me, helped me, and taught me a great deal. Studiomates It has been a wonderful fi ve years. Thank you for your friendship, compassion, laughter, insight, and time. I’m glad to have had the opportunity to get to know each of you. Friends and Family Thank you for helping me not take myself so serious and for reminding me that there is life outside Seaton Hall. Thank you for your support, love, and understanding. xi Chapter 1 Introduction X1 2 Introduction When I fi rst started learning about temporary landscapes I thought they were a passing fad. Was it exciting to see people use abandoned spaces in a new way? Of course. Did I admire the initiative and organization needed to make these spaces successful? Yes, obviously. Was it amazing to see people engaged in their environment? Without a doubt. However, my overwhelming impression was that temporary landscapes were a sub-par replacement for permanent improvement. I considered temporary landscapes to be provisional, a mere substitute for the ‘real thing’ (Temel 2006). Temporary landscapes were a band-aid on a wound needing stitches. I assumed the only value in temporary landscapes was that they could potentially transition into a permanent landscape. My ill-informed opinion of temporary landscapes quickly changed once I became involved in the development of a temporary landscape in Wichita, Kansas. As part of my internship with the Wichita Downtown Development Corporation (WDDC) I was responsible for developing preliminary designs for a temporary park in downtown Wichita. My research and work on the temporary park, Douglas Pop-up Park, gave me a renewed interest and respect for temporary landscapes. I continued to research temporary landscapes and eventually I chose temporary landscapes as a topic for my master’s report. Temporary landscapes had more substance than I initially expected. Temporary landscapes are much more than sub-par substitutes for permanent landscapes. Temporary landscapes challenge ideas of permanence and promote adaptable and fl exible design. Temporary landscapes are not band-aids for a larger problem. They are creative solutions that deepen critical discourse in landscape architecture. Most importantly, temporary landscapes provide a unique perspective about the role of time within landscape architecture. 3 As I researched temporary landscapes I came across a wide variety of projects. Some temporary projects lasted for hours, some lasted for months. Some projects were replicated around the world while others maintained one location. There was a large body of excellent temporary landscapes but very limited discussion on how these temporary landscapes related to one another. Projects were isolated and the literature didn’t provide connections between projects. The lack of connections between temporary landscape projects impedes the landscape architects’ ability to fully evaluate and learn from these spaces. Currently each time a designer creates a temporary landscape they have to go through a process of clarifying what temporary means and helping others understand the range of possibilities for a temporary landscape. This research project develops connections between temporary landscapes in order to assist the landscape architect’s ability to fully understand, execute, and evaluate temporary landscapes (see Figure 1.1). The products of this research are a typology, a framework, a carefully curated series of precedent studies, and a matrix showing connections between temporal types. Times Square Climb Jump Pink Balls Leap South Central Farms Imagine Project Urban Jane Urban ReSurfaced PARK(ing) Fabric Warner Meadows Day Plaza Bklyn Figure 1.1 Connecting Projects (by Author) 4 Research Questions The design discipline has developed a thorough vocabulary to defi ne different types of permanent landscapes (e.g. park, plaza, square). However, the discipline has not addressed the need for temporal vocabulary. Using an exploratory research process this research addresses the need for a typology in order to better understand how temporary landscapes are related to each other. Understanding the connections between projects is the fi rst step in advancing the landscape architect’s ability to fully understand, execute, and evaluate temporary landscapes. This research addresses three questions: • What is a temporary landscape? • What factors are important to organizing temporary landscapes into a typology?